Sen. Charles Schwertner has joined a group of rural lawmakers who are using both legislative and budgetary provisions to stop the progress on the high-speed train.

“This legislation will ensure that the property rights of our constituents are respected and guarantee that state taxpayers won’t be asked to bail out this project when costs inevitably exceed projections and ridership fails to meet expectations,” the Georgetown Republican has said of the rail line this session, citing a Reason Foundation study that projects potential long-term financial losses.

for a state that touts itself as business friendly and innovative, we sure seem to be going out of our way to not be. TCR has done nothing but try to do what they said they would so far. If they don't want this venture to happen, do them a favor and run them off now. Don't get this dance that's going on.

Having to actually see the train will be a daily reminder of the two large metropolitan regions they really don't care for and certainly don't want to help them grow and prosper even more than they already are.

I wish we could get a much higher turnout of metropolitan voters in Texas at the polls for all elections. The way it is right now the rural voters determine policy that rules the large cities. City people don't vote in enough numbers and Texas has 3 of the largest metro areas on the country.

What's funny is that pipelines are used to decrease the use of trucks, which may cause traffic but at least there's a small chance the trucker might stop in town and buy something from the gas station. Look at I40 through New Mexico for what happens when your town is no longer needed by travelers.

lindseynicole010 wrote:This is easy and simple for natural disaster survivors to spiral down into negative victim status. This was starting to come about to me, as well as whilst on one level I realized it was part of the natural recovery process. Humans are not built to deal with constant, irregular change on an ongoing basis, but in the aftermath of a natural disaster this is what we are faced with. We discover it extremely discomforting. Thanks& regards,Lindsey nicoleDisaster Equipments|Disaster Supplies

DPatel304 wrote:Maybe it would be worth it to go the Hyperloop route, but who knows when or even if this technology will ever be feasible. It could be decades from now.

Whether Hyperloop will ever exist will depend upon somebody investing billions of dollars into it, just like High Speed Rail needs investors. the difference between the two is very simple, no one wants to invest into Hyperloop today while there are investors for High Speed Rail - the Texas Central Partners. Texas Central as a company exists today, Texas Hyperloop doesn't exist today.....

Additionally, the FRA, FTA, FAA, or some other government agency is going to have to make regulations for the safe operations of a Hyperloop system - regulations that also don't exist today. It'll take the government years, possibly decades, to develop such regulations - FRA already has rail regulations for safe operations in place today....

Therefore, if you want fast surface transportation to occur soon, the only viable option today is high speed rail.

How long do we think it would take with the current trains and how ever many needed double track areas to have an "express service" from Dallas to Ft Worth? And then with more modern trains such as the Stadler KISS double decker?

The I-35 corridor already has a once a day Amtrak train with poor ridership. Maybe it will perform better with much higher speeds, maybe not? But the existing subsidized Amtrak train service will be competition to a new privately ran high speed rail service. Few private companies like to compete against subsidized public companies.

With all the political difficulties a privately ran railroad is experiencing, do you really believe Texas will ever implement a publicly subsidized intercity rail service?

To add, if Amtrak had its way, both Amtrak trains servicing Texas would be providing services thrice a week or less. The Midwest, Northwest, California, Texas, Florida, or Southeast USA aren't getting much Amtrak money expanding rail services. Amtrak looks for much of the money t come from the States. The only place in the USA where Amtrak is really interested investing in future train ser vices with their own money is along its Northeast Corridor. It's been that way since Amtrak was formed in the 1970s. Almost half of Amtrak's customers originate or terminate their trips from its NEC. Don't rely upon the Feds to finance regional train services in Texas.

electricron wrote:The I-35 corridor already has a once a day Amtrak train with poor ridership. Maybe it will perform better with much higher speeds, maybe not? But the existing subsidized Amtrak train service will be competition to a new privately ran high speed rail service. Few private companies like to compete against subsidized public companies.

With all the political difficulties a privately ran railroad is experiencing, do you really believe Texas will ever implement a publicly subsidized intercity rail service?

To add, if Amtrak had its way, both Amtrak trains servicing Texas would be providing services thrice a week or less. The Midwest, Northwest, California, Texas, Florida, or Southeast USA aren't getting much Amtrak money expanding rail services. Amtrak looks for much of the money t come from the States. The only place in the USA where Amtrak is really interested investing in future train ser vices with their own money is along its Northeast Corridor. It's been that way since Amtrak was formed in the 1970s. Almost half of Amtrak's customers originate or terminate their trips from its NEC. Don't rely upon the Feds to finance regional train services in Texas.

If it takes Amtrak more than 4 hours to go 200 miles between Dallas to Austin, the ride is little more than nostalgic. That's not a functioning, competing mode of transportation, sorry, I want it to work too, but 200 miles should on a modern train should take less than 2 hours.

electricron wrote:If it takes Amtrak more than 4 hours to go 200 miles between Dallas to Austin, the ride is little more than nostalgic. That's not a functioning, competing mode of transportation, sorry, I want it to work too, but 200 miles should on a modern train should take less than 2 hours.

The rail corridor Amtrak takes between Dallas and Austin isn't modern, the rails and signals may be newer, but the corridor has been in use for over 100 years. Additionally, there is a 45 minute layover in Ft. Worth because they refuel the locomotives there. As long as Amtrak is required to run trains longer than the locomotives fuel tanks can hold, there will refueling stops.along the way.

electricron wrote:The I-35 corridor already has a once a day Amtrak train with poor ridership. Maybe it will perform better with much higher speeds, maybe not? But the existing subsidized Amtrak train service will be competition to a new privately ran high speed rail service. Few private companies like to compete against subsidized public companies.

Lol, it's a 6.5 hour ride from Dallas to Austin for $29. It's a worthless service, non-competitive on both time and money compared to a bus. HSR, on the other hand, would allow those with a higher value of time to pay extra money to get there faster compared to bus or car, in more comfort and with the ability to work while doing so.

No doubt HSR will be competitive. But no one is proposing building or operating HSR between Austin and DFW - yet. Have you ever asked why Texas Central preferred the Dallas to Houston route first? May one of the reasons it was favored be the lack of direct Amtrak services along that route?

electricron wrote:Have you ever asked why Texas Central preferred the Dallas to Houston route first? May one of the reasons it was favored be the lack of direct Amtrak services along that route?

It was favored because those are the two of the biggest economic engines in the country, the distance between them is ideal for HSR, and unlike the I-35 corridor, there's not many people living in between them, so building it is cheaper/easier. Fear of competition from a crappy Amtrak service was almost certainly not a consideration.

Possibly?Here's a study of the top 100 HSR city-pairs by an independent researchers.http://www.america2050.org/pdf/Where-HSR-Works-Best.pdfFrom that link, "Although one Texas city pair made it into the top ten in the index (Dallas-Houston), the other major connec- tions in the Texas Triangle are further down on the list (Austin-Dallas: 45th; Austin-Houston: 54th; Houston-San Antonio: 56th: Dallas-San Antonio: 70th). These corridors tended to be ranked lower than the city pairs in California (six California city pairs were ranked in the top 25) and the Midwest (with city pairs including Chicago, Detroit, Columbus, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh), which all appeared multiple times in the top 50 pairs. Although these Texas corridors scored well in overall population, length of cor- ridor, and economic activity, the lack of (or limited) existing local and regional transit systems in these cities reduced their overall rankings. City pairs with at least one city with local transit and commuter rail systems tended to populate the top 100 city pairs. Corridors which included two such cities including New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all can be found in the top 10."

So, the real reason why Texas Central is wanting to build and operate the HSR line between Dallas and Houston and not to Austin and San Antonio is on real data based upon research. All the demographics favor it, based upon the 4 main criteria; population, distances, economics, and transit availability.

And let's face facts, Austin and San Antonio don't have great transit systems as compared to Dallas and Houston.

Texas HSR has said it multiple times a strong handshake with local transit access is critical to their success. I once tried to seriously consider the Austin Amtrak solution so I wouldn't have to have a second car in Austin when I was meeting friends there. Sadly it doesn't make any sense to ride that train unless you are stranded otherwise. If the ride was 4 hours maybe but 6.5 just goes well over the limit to worth the cost to time ratio. Particularly since a large part of the people in Dallas think of the drive as trivial in many ways.

While valid in some arguments it is limited to that. As far as the Texas HSR is concerned we have buses, light rail, and streetcars all feeding Downtown Dallas. I'm sure we could debate how healthier Austins transit system is compared with DART but studies have also shown that the potential for riders from Dallas to Houston back and fourth is stronger than Austin to Fort Worth. Despite the fact I would love to be able to train to Austin anytime I want to.

art_suckz wrote:Did the train survive the Texas Legislature this time?

I haven't been able to find news.

I think it survived quite well. It appears that the only 2 bills that passed were these two, neither of which seems to do any damage to the Texas Central proposed project:

SB 975 requires operators of high-speed rail service to meet strict security requirement to ensure safety SB 977 prohibits the use of state funds to plan, build or operate high speed rail operated by a private entity

Texas is proving again to be a leader in transportation, and the Railroad is proud to be a part of that. The Texas Bullet Train remains a key tool in the state’s infrastructure tool box as a safe, reliable and environmentally friendly option that efficiently will move our growing population.

As Senate bills 977 and 975 become law, we credit the speaker, lieutenant governor and governor for their leadership and support of fiscal conservatism and safety, as well as the bill authors – Senators Birdwell and Schwertner and Representatives Ashby and Schubert.

We look forward to our continued work with the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Texas Department of Public Safety and other government and law enforcement agencies as the system’s safety and security plan moves ahead.

Texans on the bullet train will be riding on the safest, most technologically advanced system in the world. Partnerships with these agencies ensure that.

With the regular legislative session behind us, we look forward to announcing new milestones as we achieve them. Thank you again for your support.

Not sure what "plan" entails. I always heard that prohibiting the state from spending planning money meant no new studies that were required to go forward. But this seems to be so vague that it was watered down to the point that it didn't matter.

To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail.

joshua.dodd wrote:I honestly think we'd be better off sticking to the Hyperloop. If the Hyperloop is built and turns out to be a success, it would render HSR obsolete.

Given the political difficulty we are witnessing with HSR there's no reason to believe that Hyperloop would be any easier. If anything, I'd argue it would be more difficult given the technology's unproven track history and the legal hurdles that Hyperloop would face with unwilling property owners. Tougher sell in my eyes.

That technology is far from ready for a national roll-out. High-Speed Rail has competition and proven track record with continued reinvestment in technology. I am not willing for one guy with an idea to flush out. If it truly is ready that fast there will be plenty of opportunities in this state to prove its worth. How about the Dallas to Fort Worth High-Speed Rail line that makes no sense to High-Speed Rail experts but the RTC is dedicated to forcing through anyway.

^^^ Multi-tracking the TRE where it is not currently, running express trains along the route and ultimately improving Arlington's public transportation (adding a stop near 157, connecting streetcar or other transit access to Entertainment District) makes way more sense than throwing money at HSR at this point in time.

SlandersonCooper wrote:^^^ Multi-tracking the TRE where it is not currently, running express trains along the route and ultimately improving Arlington's public transportation (adding a stop near 157, connecting streetcar or other transit access to Entertainment District) makes way more sense than throwing money at HSR at this point in time.

I agree but RTC and the Arlington Mayor are against it. Arlington shows a consistent hate for mass transit proposals. The RTC is run by regionalists who see Dallas as being the favorite child for High-Speed Rail and they are upset by that. Fort Worth is even supportive of Dallas to Fort Worth HSR because they wanted HSR as much as Dallas. Yes, there is a plan for an Oklahoma-FTW-Austin route advancing but compared to the Dallas-Houston route progress that will take longer. I don't think Arlington will welcome anything but an HSR solution and the RTC seems hell bent on trying to pretend that every city in DFW is equal and deserves the very same access to the HSR by way of DFW airport.

Tivo_Kenevil wrote:Intra metro HSR is a waste of money. You might as well just drive. You're going to need to a damn car when you get to For Worth or Arlington.

Honestly, both cities will be better off improving transit. Too bad this is Texas.

Fort Worth has a solid bus system and is currently building a train to connect longer distance areas. Add to that Fort Worth does offer tourist transit between the Cultural District and Sundance. Plus Fort Worth has bike share something Dallas still seems to be eluded by despite having a sponsor lined up for a system rollout. Fort Worth is pretty strong on their end.

It's Arlington that the train would be a taxi/uber station only. Arlington has no walkable areas anyway despite efforts with their Downtown so it's a wash.

Irving-based Fluor Enterprises and the Lane Construction Corp. have been chosen to operate the high-speed rail line that will carry travelers between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, developer Texas Central Partners said Monday.

The announcement comes after more than three years of development by Texas Central, the private company behind the $12 billion-plus venture. The project will be backed by private investors and the company has pledged not to seek public money.

It depends honestly. While we all would like to see the station designs but if the zoning is already in place they are not required to post them publicly. They could start construction and not post them at all and we would have to see what goes up as it is built. That, of course, depends on the PR campaign. They would obviously get good placement in the press for releasing renderings but they are building a private project so if they think it's better to unveil later then they could hold back.

No doubt the architect for the station will have those renderings all over their website, which is how we find a lot of the drawings for this site. Then Steve Brown will get them from this site and have Texas Central confirm the plans.

"The memorandum of understanding, signed Thursday by [Houston] Mayor Sylvester Turner and Tim Keith, president of Texas Central Partners, reveals that the train’s terminus station will probably be located at the old Northwest Mall property. The close-in mall site would probably be an excellent location for certain kinds of redevelopment, but it’s a questionable place for a transportation hub.

If you haven’t shopped at Northwest Mall lately – and not many people have – it’s located near the intersection of Loop 610 and Highway 290.

Northwest Mall is not an easy place to get to – unless you own a helicopter.

The Northwest Mall site is adjacent to the West Loop, which has been recognized many times as the busiest freeway in the state of Texas. And Highway 290 is no slouch when it comes to horrible traffic.

Alan Bernstein, director of communications for the mayor, notes that the train station site has not been finalized.

But the memorandum signed Thursday by the mayor says: “Texas Central has advised the City and the City acknowledges that Texas Central proposes to locate the Houston Terminal Station in the general area south of U.S. 290, west of Loop 610, and north of I-10. Texas Central will consult with the City prior to finalizing the location of the Houston Terminal Station.”"

If I am not mistaken the reason that particular Houston site has been selected is due to many factors. With one of the biggest I believe being the cost to locate the station in downtown Houston just simply not being feasible from an ROI perspective nor logistically possible.

I am not exactly thrilled with Dallas' location for its HSR terminal either ... I believe it would be far better served if located at Union Station since so many other transportation lines already connect there.

With the HSR terminating at Union Station it could become Dallas' equivalent to Grand Central Station in NYC.

As a positive, a Cedars HSR station is very significantly closer and literally only a stone's throw to our downtown CBD core in comparison to Houston's planned station at their Northwest Mall site.

But at the same time, what I believe are significant synergies and economies of scale and transportation efficiency would be far better served and realized if the Dallas HSR station were co-located at Union Station in our true downtown CBD, and not in one of the peripheral districts ringing the CBD.

How will the HSR line get to Union Station in Dallas? It can't use the railroad tracks going under the convention center, because it will be using non FRA certified trains which will not be able to share tracks with any other train. It certainly can't go over the convention center which is several stories high. And no one can afford to tunnel under the convention center. I suppose you believe they can just build the HSR line through the convention center? Let's face reality, the convention center is a giant sized road block for HSR.

electricron wrote:How will the HSR line get to Union Station in Dallas? It can't use the railroad tracks going under the convention center, because it will be using non FRA certified trains which will not be able to share tracks with any other train. It certainly can't go over the convention center which is several stories high. And no one can afford to tunnel under the convention center. I suppose you believe they can just build the HSR line through the convention center? Let's face reality, the convention center is a giant sized road block for HSR.

Isn't it the DART tracks that run under the convention center, and the freight line where the HSR will be built runs along the western edge of the convention center, under it? That's why the Dallas Morning News HQ was proposed as a station site. I hadn't heard that the Cedars Station had been confirmed as the chosen site, only that it was the easiest.

I wonder if it would be feasible to run those tracks just a little more westward, over I-30, and into the former Reunion Arena site and build the station mixed use there. It's a blank canvas with enough space for a true TOD, and they could build a skybridge to Union Station to make it truly an intermodal transit hub. The DMN HQ site would be ideal too as long as they preserve the Rock of Truth inscription.

I never thought the DMN site was viable for the same reason I never thought Union Station was assessible. In fact, the DMN site also required crossing light rail tracks, making it even more unlikely. Most trains don't jump 20 feet in 20 feet, they require 2000 feet to climb 20 feet (at 1% grade). The convention center was also built over the freight rail corridor. Immediately to the south of the freight rail corridor is a city street, and immediately to the south of the street is the city owned parking garage surrounded by both the Houston Street and Jefferson Blvd. viaducts. No private enterprise railroad company is going to be successful buying city owned property and tearing it down easily or quickly.

Hunt Inc owns The Union Station Building, as well as Reunion Tower, Hyatt Regency and after a land swap with the city, Hunt owns the former Reunion Arena site.

I'm not sure who owns the significant parking garage under Houston & Jeffferson St viaducts, but I pretty sure Hunt Inc owns the right to build on top of that garage.

Had Hunt Inc partnered with TCP, there should be little doubt the HSR station would be elevated between the Hyatt and Union Station, with the second level of Union Station returning to use as a station for passenger trains. The second level platform would probably have a direct connection to the Hyatt, too, and just as likely direct access to whatever office, hotel, commercial complex would have been Hunt-Built on the former arena site.

As it is, Matthews Southwest and the acreage it owns ESE of the highway entered the HSR partnership, so all the stuff will go there. I would have preferred reactivating Union Station, but it's all good.

Perhaps there's a professional sports-minded principal within Hunt, Inc interested to lure/land a professional baseball franchise to all that Reunion land.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.